\l.. 1 111 :ii 



jT 



Pertiment Legal Findirjgs 



Unguarded Sawmill Machinery— i-^vnhive OammKes 



\ -•.wMiiM wliuli lia.l U-.li liHiitoil ill tl"' wihi.Ih lit <>iit< pliiCQ for 

 ,„„ yi?ar wall u ' • mBuufactiiriiic iiiiH-liniiionl or oUier 



„,;, • within the rcqiiirompnt of tin' Miwonri »t«tiil<'!i tJint 



ilnnRorouh inacliiniTv in iiui-li Mtn»iIiiiliiniMit» l* wifi'tninr.lc.i wlioii 

 procticaWo, pntitling an cniplovo to rt-covir for injury rcmiltinc to 

 him through hi» clotiiiug catching on nn iiugimr.U'.l r.-volviiit: s<t 

 screw. Hut *7,500 was excexsive recovery for the injury, althougli 

 he was hurhvl around a shaft ten or twelve times, was remlerod iiucoii 

 gfi,. • his iinkles wiisi |>ermanently injured, and his hearing' 



wii- Kive thousand dollars is iido<iunto reeovery. (Sprinj;- 



field. Mo., .(lurt of n|>|ieal(<: Sanders vs. Qucriu» Lumljer Company, 

 IT.'l .Soiithw.-.'.torn R>']>ortor "10. 1 



Mistake in Business TelcRram 

 According to the de<Msiou of the Mi!'»i».'<ippi supr.-iiu' court lately 

 announced in the case of Barrett Grocery foiiipany vs. Western 

 Union Telegraph Company, 67 Southern Reporter 481, where lumber 

 is ordered by telegraph and through a mistjiko of the telegraph com- 

 pany the message as delivered calls for a larger quantity than the 

 telegram delivered to the company, tlie sender waives any claim 

 against the company, on account of the mistake, by accepting delivery 

 of the exces.s of the lumber. 



Removal of Timber by Purchaser 

 A timber deed contained the foUowiug clause: "The party of the 

 second part (the purchaser) shall cut and remove said timljer as 

 erpe<Htiously as possible, and it is agreed that unless it shall have 

 removed all the same within a period of ten years from the date 

 hereof, it shall be responsible for and jiay to the first party the 

 full amount of taies assessed against Said lands after the expiration 

 of said period of ten years from this date until such times as said 

 timber is removed." In a suit brought by the owner of the land to 

 cancel the deed for delay on the part of the i.urcha.scr in removing 

 the timber (Newton vs. Warren Aehicle Stock Company. I".'! South- 

 western Beporter 819), the Arkansas supreme court det'ided the 

 following propositions: The purchaser of the timber could not excuse 

 several years' delay in cutting the timber on the ground of lack of 

 funds due to a financial panic, nor on account of there not being a 

 favorable market for products of the timber. The clause for pay- 

 meftt of taxrf after ten years cannot be deemed to give the purchaser 

 that length of time in which to remove the timber. The mere fact 

 that the owner of the land requested the purchaser to clear a certain 

 portion of the land after an unreasonable delay in conducting opera- 

 . tiona will not be regarded as a waiver of the delay, especially where 

 the request was not complied with. 



Check as Final Payment 



Plaintiff sold quantities of lumber to defendant", who later sent 

 him a check containing the statement on its face, "for Ibr. to date." 

 Plaintiff collected the cheek, but later demanded further jiayment, 

 claiming that the amount did not pay all that was clue. The trial 

 judge decided that acceptance of the check with the quoted clause 

 on it precluded further recovery, but, on plaintiff's appeal to the 

 supreme court of North Carolina, that court reversed the judgment 

 and ordered a new trial on the ground that since no dispute had 

 risen between the parties at the time the check was sent as to the 

 amount due, plaintiff did not necessarily waive right to claim that 

 a balance was actually due. But the court said : 



"It is well recognized that when, in case of a disputed account 

 between parties, a check is given and received, clearly purporting 

 to be in full, or when such a check is given and, from the facts and 

 attendant circumstances, it clearly appears that it is to be received 

 in full of all indebtedness of a given character or all indebtedness to 

 date, the courts will allow to such a payment the effect contended 

 for" — final settlement of the account. (Rosser \-s. Bynum & Snipes, 

 84 Southeastern Reporter 393.) 



Kisk Assumed by Employe in Unloading Loki 

 A lumber compnny '» employe cannot recover ngniniit it for injury 

 received while aniisting in unloading logs from n cjir, if he volun- 

 tarily, and without any orders to do so, placed himMf where he knew 

 that the logn were apt to fnll upon him unless ho should Im- extremely 

 agile to iwapc their imiiiinent fall while he and a oo I'Miployc were 

 trying to ilinlodge them ( Mimii'sotn HUpreine court, Tetra vs. Crooks- 

 toll l.innlMr ('(iiiipnny, l.')l Niirtliwe.-tern Reporter 18,'t.) 



Innocent Purchasers of Lumber 



1 1 II -iiiiiiiHinl (if lumlier Ik k»I<I on an uiiilerNt«nding that it fhall 

 lie paid for on jiresentntion of invoice, the seller may rerlnini poHses- 

 sion if he act* iiroiiiptly nn refiisnl of the buyer t<i pay the amount 

 due, unless the liiiiiber has in the meantime pasned into the hands of 

 an iiiiioeeiit piindiaser who relieil on the buyer's apparent uncondi- 

 tional owiierHliip. This is the suljstance of the ilecision of the 

 Washington siijirenie court in the late eaw" of the Orillin l^umber 

 Company vs. Chicago, MilwaukiH' & Puget Sound Railway Compnny. 



Plaintiff sold a quantity of lumber to the Pago Lumlier Company 

 and afterwards sought to hold the carrying railroad coniimny for 

 the value of the shipment on non-payment of the price, and after the 

 bill of lading had been transferred to a third party. In deciding in 

 favor of the railroad company, the supreme court said: 



The gonernl and equitable rule Is that, wlicn one of two innocent 

 persons must snlTer, that one must suffer who has placed it in the 

 power of a tlilril person to do the wrong. In this cane, • • • the 

 Orlllia Lumber Company loaded the lumber upon the car of the railway 

 company, and a bill of lading was issued at Its request to the Togc 

 Lumber (.oinpany. Therefore, so far as ony person dealing with the 

 bill of hiding was concerned or could have known, the I'agc Lumber 

 Company was both the consignor and consignee of the lumber. In 

 short, the lumber was delivered to the Page Lumber I'oiiipnny at the 

 time it was loaded upon the car. There was nothing to indicate that 

 the Orlllia Lumber Company had any interest in the lumber. • • • 

 If the Orillia Lumber I'ompony desired to reserve any Interest In the 

 property shipped, it could easily have done so by having the bill of 

 lading made out in Its name, or a note or memorandum made upon the 

 bill of lading stating the terms of the sale. 



Failure to Keep Sav»mill Tally 

 A lumber company contracted to buy and remove standing timber 

 and to give notes covering the agreed price per thousand feet for 

 timlier logged during preceding mouths, as shown by log scale nt a 

 river bank. The notes, however, were to be settled according to 

 mea.suremont shown by the buyer's sawmill tally. In a suit on notes 

 given under this contract, the lumber company claimed that tho log 

 scale upon which the notes were based so far exceeded the measure- 

 ment of the lumber manufactured from the logs that the company 

 was entitled to a credit of more than $10,000 on tho notes. It 

 appears, however, that the company failed to keep a sawmill tally, 

 as required by the contract, and that its measurements were largely 

 based upon association tallies made at various points where the 

 himber was sold. In denying the lumber company's right to claim 

 any credit, on the ground of its failure to keep a mill tally, the 

 Oregon supreme court said: 



The "association tally" Is not the tally which was agreed upon by 

 the parties as a basis of settlement. For a court to adopt some other 

 measurement than the one specially provided by the ogrcemcnt of the 

 parties would be to make a new and different contract from the one 

 entered into by the parties, and that is beyond our power. Without, 

 the sawmill tally there Is no complete record of the quantity of logs 

 cut. excepting the "landing scale" kept by the lumber company, and 

 therefore no means provided whereby the court could accomplish the 

 accounting and settlement provided for In the agreement. The cutting, 

 manufacturing, and marketing of the logs were all in the hands of the 

 plaintiff, and if, by its own negligence, it has failed to comply with the 

 terms of the contract provided for its own protection. It cannot complain 

 If it suffers loss thereby. 



One-Sided Contract of Sale Invalid 

 A contract to sell timber products is invalid and unenforceable 

 for want of mutuality if it requires the buyer to accept, but leaves 

 the seller free to withhold, delivery. (Missouri supreme court, Hud- 

 son vs. Browning, 174 Southwestern Reporter 393.) 



